Amit Kumar Pandey v. The State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko. And Another

HON'BLE PRAMOD KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned AGA for the State and perused the record. Learned counsel for the appellant has filed supplementary affidavit today in Court, the same is taken on record. On 08.08.2025, co-ordinate Bench of this Court had passed the following order: "Counter affidavit filed by learned AGA in the Court today is taken on record. Service of notice upon opposite party No. 2 is sufficient as appears from the Office Report dated 27.06.2025 and Annexure No. CA-1 to the counter affidavit of State filed in the Court today. When the case was called out, no one appeared on behalf of the opposite party No. 2 to oppose the instant appeal. Learned AGA is present in the Court. In the interest of justice, the case is adjourned today. List/put up this appeal in the week commencing 25.08.2025. It is made clear that on the next date of listing, the case would not be adjourned on any ground illness/out of station/sanctioned leave of the counsel for the opposite party No. 2 and it would be heard and decided in first call even in absence including 2 CRLA No. 1712 of 2025 of learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2. " Today, when the case is taken up, no one has turned up on behalf of opposite party no.2, even in the revised call. In the above circumstances, as the matter pertains to bail this Court has no option but to proceed for final arguments to decide the present appeal. The present criminal appeal under Section 14-A (2) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been preferred against the impugned order dated 17.04.2025 passed by the court of Special Judge (S.C./S.T. Act), Sitapur in Bail Application No. 125/2025 (Amit Kumar Pandey Vs. State of U.P.), arising out of Case Crime No. 119/2025, under Sections 64 (1), 352, 351(3) B.N.S., Section 3(2) V of the SC/ST Act and Section 67 of the Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008, Police Station Reusa, District Sitapur, whereby the bail application of the appellant has been rejected. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has been falsely implicated in the present case. He next submits that the prosecutrix is major and married women and as per statement recorded before the court on oath she has stated that she had never seen the video and no one has sent the video in her husband's mobile. She is not in a position to tell that who had prepared the video clip. Learned counsel for the appellant next submits that the appellant has no criminal history and is languishing in jail since 22.03 .2025. He added that in case the appellant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and he shall fully cooperate with the trial. He has further submitted that there is no possibility of the appellant to intimidate or pressurize the witnesses or any other persons acquainted with the facts of the present case. For the aforesaid reasons, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the instant criminal appeal deserves to be allowed and the impugned order may be set aside and consequently, the appellant deserve to be enlarged on bail. Per contra, learned AGA has opposed the prayer by submitting that there is active participation of accused/appellant in the crime. Therefore, the accused/ appellant is not entitled to be enlarged on 3 CRLA No. 1712 of 2025 bail and the instant criminal appeal deserves to be dismissed. However, he has been unable to dispute the other factual submissions advanced by accused/appellant. learned counsel Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of material available on record, It transpires that the prosecutrix is major and married women and as per statement recorded before the court on oath she has stated that she had never seen the video and no one has sent the video in her husband's mobile and she is not in a position to tell that who had prepared the video clip; the appellant has no criminal history and is languishing in jail since 22.03.2025 and he has undertaken that in case he is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate with the trial. Without expressing any opinion on merit, this Court is of the view that the learned court below has failed to appreciate the material available on record, thus, the order passed by the court below is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. Consequently, the impugned order dated 17.04.2025 passed by the court of Special Judge (S.C./S.T. Act), Sitapur in Bail Application No. 125/2025 (Amit Kumar Pandey Vs. State of U.P.), arising out of Case Crime No. 119/2025, under Sections 64 (1), 352, 351(3) B.N.S., Section 3(2) V of the SC/ST Act and Section 67 of the Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008 , Police Station Reusa, District Sitapur, is hereby set aside. Let the appellant-Amit Kumar Pandey be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following additional conditions- (1) The appellant shall cooperate with prosecution during trial. (ii) The appellant shall not tamper with the evidence during trial (iii) The appellant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness(s). (iv) The appellant shall not commit an offence. (v) The appellant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the 4 CRLA No. 1712 of 2025 court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence. (vi) The appellant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through counsel. (vii) The appellant shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. (viii) The appellant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.PC. In case of default of above conditions, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law As this order relates to enlargement of the appellant on bail, it is clarified that observation(s) made in this order shall have no bearing on the merits of the case and the trial court shall not be influenced by any observation(s) made in this order. December 11, 2025 Arvind (Pramod Kumar Srivastava,J.) ARVIND KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

HON'BLE PRAMOD KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned AGA for the State and perused the record. Learned counsel for the appellant has filed supplementary affidavit today in Court, the same is taken on record. On 08.08.2025, co-ordinate Bench of this Court had passed the following order: "Counter affidavit filed by learned AGA in the Court today is taken on record. Service of notice upon opposite party No. 2 is sufficient as appears from the Office Report dated 27.06.2025 and Annexure No. CA-1 to the counter affidavit of State filed in the Court today. When the case was called out, no one appeared on behalf of the opposite party No. 2 to oppose the instant appeal. Learned AGA is present in the Court. In the interest of justice, the case is adjourned today. List/put up this appeal in the week commencing 25.08.2025. It is made clear that on the next date of listing, the case would not be adjourned on any ground illness/out of station/sanctioned leave of the counsel for the opposite party No. 2 and it would be heard and decided in first call even in absence including 2 CRLA No. 1712 of 2025 of learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2. " Today, when the case is taken up, no one has turned up on behalf of opposite party no.2, even in the revised call. In the above circumstances, as the matter pertains to bail this Court has no option but to proceed for final arguments to decide the present appeal. The present criminal appeal under Section 14-A (2) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been preferred against the impugned order dated 17.04.2025 passed by the court of Special Judge (S.C./S.T. Act), Sitapur in Bail Application No. 125/2025 (Amit Kumar Pandey Vs. State of U.P.), arising out of Case Crime No. 119/2025, under Sections 64 (1), 352, 351(3) B.N.S., Section 3(2) V of the SC/ST Act and Section 67 of the Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008, Police Station Reusa, District Sitapur, whereby the bail application of the appellant has been rejected. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has been falsely implicated in the present case. He next submits that the prosecutrix is major and married women and as per statement recorded before the court on oath she has stated that she had never seen the video and no one has sent the video in her husband's mobile. She is not in a position to tell that who had prepared the video clip. Learned counsel for the appellant next submits that the appellant has no criminal history and is languishing in jail since 22.03 .2025. He added that in case the appellant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and he shall fully cooperate with the trial. He has further submitted that there is no possibility of the appellant to intimidate or pressurize the witnesses or any other persons acquainted with the facts of the present case. For the aforesaid reasons, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the instant criminal appeal deserves to be allowed and the impugned order may be set aside and consequently, the appellant deserve to be enlarged on bail. Per contra, learned AGA has opposed the prayer by submitting that there is active participation of accused/appellant in the crime. Therefore, the accused/ appellant is not entitled to be enlarged on 3 CRLA No. 1712 of 2025 bail and the instant criminal appeal deserves to be dismissed. However, he has been unable to dispute the other factual submissions advanced by accused/appellant. learned counsel Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of material available on record, It transpires that the prosecutrix is major and married women and as per statement recorded before the court on oath she has stated that she had never seen the video and no one has sent the video in her husband's mobile and she is not in a position to tell that who had prepared the video clip; the appellant has no criminal history and is languishing in jail since 22.03.2025 and he has undertaken that in case he is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate with the trial. Without expressing any opinion on merit, this Court is of the view that the learned court below has failed to appreciate the material available on record, thus, the order passed by the court below is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. Consequently, the impugned order dated 17.04.2025 passed by the court of Special Judge (S.C./S.T. Act), Sitapur in Bail Application No. 125/2025 (Amit Kumar Pandey Vs. State of U.P.), arising out of Case Crime No. 119/2025, under Sections 64 (1), 352, 351(3) B.N.S., Section 3(2) V of the SC/ST Act and Section 67 of the Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008 , Police Station Reusa, District Sitapur, is hereby set aside. Let the appellant-Amit Kumar Pandey be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following additional conditions- (1) The appellant shall cooperate with prosecution during trial. (ii) The appellant shall not tamper with the evidence during trial (iii) The appellant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness(s). (iv) The appellant shall not commit an offence. (v) The appellant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the 4 CRLA No. 1712 of 2025 court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence. (vi) The appellant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through counsel. (vii) The appellant shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. (viii) The appellant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.PC. In case of default of above conditions, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law As this order relates to enlargement of the appellant on bail, it is clarified that observation(s) made in this order shall have no bearing on the merits of the case and the trial court shall not be influenced by any observation(s) made in this order. December 11, 2025 Arvind (Pramod Kumar Srivastava,J.) ARVIND KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench